When in times of war, especially when people are drafted in order to perform military duties, I believe that people have a right to be a conscientious objector to war, most definitely if it's for religious reasons or deep philosophical reason and these people should instead be assigned to public services instead to going into war.

Draft dodging problemIf you were able to "dodge" the draft legally, due to religion or other reasons, it would be abused very much. A great many con men would take the opportunity to make fake religions such as "Draftdodgerism" and the like. Many people would join these "religions" and dodge the draft. In effect, this "right" would be completely abused and there would be no draft.Privacy issuesOn the other end of the spectrum, the government could made a registry of all "real" religions and people who were in them and that would make a ripe area for abuse by the government. Take one example, the government made a fake religion to put their families in so they could dodge the draft. Another example would be if a racist government was effected and they used the registry so they could deny rights to all members of a certain religion. It would be a humongous violation of privacy.At the frontAt the front lines, if members of a certain religion weren't there, soldiers could build up racism against the religions that weren't there. Soldiers could be envious of the non-participating religions and when they get back, they would pass the racism on to other people, causing a domino effect of racism which could be harmful to that group. If on the other hand, a persecuted group went to war instead of staying, it could effect bonding between them and other soldiers causing less racism.

You stated that "The government made a fake religion to put their families in so they could dodge the draft," and "A great many con men would take the opportunity to make fake religion." In order to become a conscientious objector, a man's lifestyle prior to making his claim to become a conscientious objector must reflect his current claim. In order to become a conscientious objector, one must either have a "written documentation, or include personal appeances by people he knows who can attest to his claims." After that, a local board must either accept his claim or deny them. If a man's lifestye were not to match his current claims, he will not be granted the conscientious objector status.

Widespread corruptionWritten documentation written by whom? This written documentation could be written by the dubious leaders of "draftdodgerism" for example. You could also falsify a friendship with somebody else from "draftdodgerism" and have them testify. Local boards do not have high-paying salaries as the upkeep would be too high, allowing for low bribes and such. Lets take a hypothetical example of "draftdodgerism". Everybody who joins has to pay a membership fee. The membership fee goes into a central pot, which is used to falsify documents and pay bribes. Other members would pose as friends and testify. The membership fee would often be considerably higher than the cost for the illegal activities, allowing the leader to make a hefty profit. Your entire argument is based on a de jure (theoretical world following the law perfectly)world, while de facto, corruption is very possible. In response to your second and last sentence, all these fake religions would have to do would be centered towards a specific niche, with the rules differing in negligible ways from the target audience.

First of all, your arguements are hypothetical without any evidence to back it up. Each of your statements are based off of assumptions without facts which does not debunk my previous statements; they merely try to assume a situation to find a way around it. Your entire arguement is based off the word if.

Army Morale

If we were to force valid conscientious objectors to war, it would hamper the militay more than strengthen it. For every way possible there is for a man to con his way through draft, there are equally as many who actually have religious beliefs and philosophical reasons which come in conflict when they are told to bare arms. There are many people with religions which illicit them from commiting acts of violence and bloodshed. There are also just as many people who are pacifists; people who refuse to participate in any violence which include the military. If we were to draft these men to the military, their conflicing beliefs and conscience would collide which would weaken the military due to their unwillingness to fight.

Why forcing conscientious objectors to war is goodForcing conscientious objectors to war would actually help the war effort because they have never actually experienced war, so once they do, they will see that it is necessary. Technical pacifists are really the main kind of pacifists there are, there is rarely any actual pacifists out there. Anyways, most of your source in unreliable because it refers to certain people able to cast "white magic". The website even deals with "tv tropes". The name of the website does not seem very well-suited to the real world. In all characteristics, this website is based on fictional ideals, as white magic does not exist and the website is named "tv tropes".Sources:http://tvtropes.org...

Once again my opponent has not been able to provide any edivence for his statements, other than giving a rebuttal claiming that one of my sources should not be trusted. Furthurmore, since my opponent has not listed any other evidence to support his claims in his previous arguements, his rebuttals are not solid. Vote Pro.

Final RebuttalMy opponent states that Technical Pacifists will go to war once they see that it is nessesary.

So by definition, a true pacifist would not do as you claim. You also have not given a rebuttal stating why sending conscientious objectors to war wouldn't lower the army morale, thus you have conceded to the fact that sending pacifists and true conscientious objectors does indeed hamper the military morale.

Final rebuttalIn your last paragraph, you say that "You also have not given a rebuttal stating why sending conscientious objectors to war wouldn't lower the army morale". In the last sentence of my first argument, you can clearly see that you have conceded the point to me. "... it could effect bonding between them and other soldiers..." is the statement I have said. Since you have not given a rebuttal to that, you have already conceded the point that pacifists going to the front builds up army morale. Anyways, have you given any supporting evidence to your statements? My statements are based on the first paragraph of my source, the definitions for technical pacifism and true pacifism. Your final rebuttal changes your source for definitions of pacifism. The definition you see there is for true pacifism, not for technical pacifism. Technical pacifists go to war when their lives are in danger[1]. "...he or she is in contrast to the far-more-common Technical pacifist, who is fine with punching, stabbing, shooting or maiming people as long as they survive the experience."[1] is a direct quote from the article you mentioned. A true pacifist would do as I claim, they would go into the military service but only in non-combatant duty [2]. Being a pacifist means not doing military service, as military service would be actually fighting, being a medic is allowed under the pacifist definition. Your first definition is "a person who believes in pacifism or is opposed to war or violence of any kind". Being a medic is healing people, so sending pacifists into war is easily made up for by putting them in non-combatant roles.Sources:[1]http://tvtropes.org...;[2]http://www.sss.gov...;